Gabriel Almond introduced his functionalist theory in the 1970’s as an alternative approach to the study of comparative politics. His theory emphasizes the idea that political systems consist of ‘various institutions, political parties, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and bureaucratic machinery’ (London, 2008). However, in order to adequately compare two political systems one must look further than just what institutions the two countries have in common and more so as to how the various institiutions within the countries function (Johari, 1982:77). Almond’s theory provides a mechanism through which a more accurate comparison of political systems can be made due to the fact that it not only takes a political system’s structural components into account but also its institutions and how the institutions function within the system (Munck and Snyder, 2007:63-64). Almond makes use of a model to illustrate what happens within a political system, this model is based around the idea that in a political system there are inputs and outputs which work in unison with each other in order to bring about the successful functioning of a political system. Almond uses this example: ‘interest groups provide the mechanism through which political issues are articulated; political parties then address them in a coherent and meaningful way; government in turn enacts public policies to address them; and bureaucracies finally regulate and adjudicate them’ (London, 2008). However, political systems are extremely dynamic and are therefore always undergoing change in order to adapt to the changing conditions in the contemporary political landscape. Almond also underlines the role that political culture plays in shaping political systems (Wiseman, 1971:23). Political socialization, recruitment and communication are all ideas that should be taken into account in order to conduct an accurate comparison between two political systems (Monroe, 1997:227).
Almond’s theory can be seen as a very important approach to comparing political systems. However, like Easton’s theory, it has various weaknesses that affect its credibility.
Both theories have played pivotal roles in establishing an understanding of the modern political landscape. However, the creation and introduction of the functionalist approach by Gabriel Almond was a major step up from the slightly out dated theories of David Easton and others which had primarily been derived and based around different concepts. Almond’s approach differs from Easton’s in the sense that it takes into consideration not only a political system’s structural components, but also its institutions and how the institutions function within the system (Munck and Snyder, 2007:63-64). In the period before structural functionalism there was no effective mechanism through which people could compare and contrast different political systems besides a somewhat basic and ‘inconclusive analysis of the various institutions associated with the political system’ (London, 2008). Almond’s system, despite being different, actually closely resembles the framework of David Easton’s theory, most notably in regards to what constitutes a political system. Easton defines politics as the ‘authoritative allocation of values’, Almond however, emphasizes the idea of ‘totality’ which is the term he used to describe the interconnecting and interaction of the different units in a political system (Wiseman, 1971:23). Almond views the political realm as being very dynamic and therefore he emphasizes the need for them to constantly change in order to ensure survival in the changing political world.
Easton focuses much more on the concepts of institutions, organisations and groups, whereas Almond concentrates more on the ideas of structure and the interaction of institutions within the political system. Almond also highlights the idea of political culture and its role in the political system (Wiseman, 1971:23). In terms of the actual comparison of political groups, Easton emphasizes the use of ‘capabilities’ as the mechanism for evaluating political systems (capabilities being the extent to which political systems are able to process inputs) (Jones, 1970:92).
There is no doubt that both theories are important in promoting an understanding of comparative politics, however Gabriel Almond and his functionalist theory is the most effective theory for comparing political systems. Through the use of political comparisons we can establish exactly how political systems function as the comparisons provide us with proper understandings of concepts such as foreign policy and international relations along with the demonstration of how nations function and change and what patterns they exhibit (Wiarda, 2005:21). The use of models, paradigms and frameworks in comparative politics are beneficial in simplifying ideas thus allowing for an easier understanding of political phenomena (Wiarda, 2005:24). It has been said that ‘Comparison is the engine of knowledge’, international comparison is critical in ensuring an accurate explanation of political phenomena (Wierda, 2005:37). It is theories such as Easton’s and Almond’s that allow us to conduct such comparisons in order to enhance our understanding of political systems. For example, Almond emphasizes the idea that in order to compare two political systems one must look further than just what institutions the two countries have in common and more so as to how the various institutions within the countries function (Johari, 1982:77). This differs from Easton’s theory which only takes into consideration political systems structural components. Almond’s theory provides the mechanism through which a more accurate comparison of political systems can be made due to the fact that it not only takes a political system’s structural components into account but also its institutions and how the institutions function within the system (Munck and Snyder, 2007:63-64). It is through such theories that we are able to more effectively analyse and enhance our understanding of political systems as we can directly compare different political systems and identify strengths and weaknesses.
Bibliography
Fuchs, D. & H, Klingemaan. (2003). La teoria politica dell'analisi dei sistemi: David Easton. , Issue 3. P 427-450.
Johari, J. (1982). Comparative Politics. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 1982.
Jones, R. (1970). Analysing foreign policy: An introduction to some conceptual problems. Routledge, 1970.
London, S. (2008). On structural functionalism. [Online]. Available: , February 28].
Monroe, K. (1997). Contemporary empirical political theory. University of California Press, 1997.
Munck, G & Snyder, R. (2007). Passion, craft and method in comparative politics. JHU Press, 2007.
Ray, S. (2004). Modern Comparative Politics: Approaches, Methods and Issues. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2004.
Susser, B. (1992). Approaches to the Study of Politics. Macmillan Publishers Co.
Wierda, H. (2005). Comparative Politics: Critical Concepts in Political Science. Taylor & Francis, 2005.
Wiseman, H. (1971). Political systems: Some sociological approaches. Taylor & Francis, 1971.
Van der Eyden, T. (2003). Public management of society: Rediscovering French institutional engineering. IOS Press, 2003.